Hi Folks,
This type of coverage seems to ignore all other GE concepts which are not
as nearly as controversial. Clearly and understandably, the media looks for
*the
most controversial *of all the concepts which can be deployed. Keith, and
most close observers of sulfur injection, understands that the potential
increase in polar stratospheric clouds that sulfuric acid injection can
produce poses a threat in the form of increased polar warming. He is
currently trying to model for that factor and all of this debate may be
simply moot if the model confirms a significant probability of polar
warming due to the use of stratospheric sulfur injection. If that
transpires, the current "barking" about this one concept will cast all
other concepts in the light of being just as "mad".
I agree with Ken that GE is a decision and not a necessity. In that, as a
global society, we need to make rational and well thought through decisions
on fundamental environmental issues. If we fail in that regard, our species
may well survive yet it will be in a global society we may not find either
secure or at our current level of modernity.
The door should be opened wider for the other less controversial concepts
which typically can be tested out and set in motion without going to a full
global scale. Biochar, marine cloud brightening and marine biomass
conversion to biofuel are just a few concepts and all are capable of being
deployed, at sub-planetary scale, today with no triggering of the GE
debate. Having such low intensity means well established and in a solid
growth mode may be our best strategy for insuring against the potential
(and high probability) of catastrophic climate change.
This approach will not make anyone or any one institution superstars and,
due to their virtual lack of controversy, will be a complete disappoint to
the mainstream media as well as a major financial letdown for the yellow
journalistic crowd. Is this worldview all that bad?
One of the greatest benefits we are seeing in this debate is the awakening
of the global view that we do need to act in a globally cooperative way in
dealing with environmental/energy issues. Having one concept, such as
sulfur injection, set the bar for the global debate may not be the best
beginning. If GE is an act of conscious decision, as opposed to forced
necessity, have different options should be a fundimental part of the
global decision process.
Best,
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:58:42 AM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote:
>
> Barking mad or a necessity? Fair and balanced - you decide.
> Greg
>
>
> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_5827066925661843458#%21
>
>
> "... Raymond Pierrehumbert <http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/> has called
> the scheme "barking mad." "
>
> "...Robock argues that while modeling and indoor experiments should be
> pursued, outdoor field trials are problematic. "You can’t see a climate
> response unless an experiment is so large as to actually be
> geoengineering," Robock says."
>
> "Keith concludes that it "makes sense to move with deliberate haste
> towards deployment of geoengineering," so long as early work supports the
> theoretical promise of the technique. Caldeira is less bullish, saying,
> "Climate change is not going to extinguish us as a species. Geoengineering
> will always be a decision, not a necessity." "
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
